Page 2 of 3
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2001 6:22 pm
by nael
@the outsider - i agree with the large metropolitan areas...basically, the entire state of california can just go ahead and sink into the ocean. new york city, mexico city, tokyo, seoul, beijing...bye bye. i think i will have to disagree on the farmers. i would much rather keep ranchers around to keep steak on my plate. you could pretty much just incinerate most of india, not that i have anything against them, in fact a good portion of my friends are Indian, but they have the highest population per area, and most of these people live wretched lives in extreme poverty. but basically it will have to be a case by case decision. let each person try to declare their worth through trade, craft, intelligence, strength, or talent.
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2001 2:49 am
by Nippy
The fact that Global Warming continues means that a lot of industrial cities are going to be sunk anyway due to rising sea levels. A lot of these cities are located close to coasts anyway for port access. They have a good chance of drowning.
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2001 8:29 am
by nael
well, i know mexico city is actually built on a lake. it sinks like 3 inches a year. also, i heard somewhere recently that there is a ring of volcanoes beneath the atlantic ocean that is becoming active. if geologists are right, they'll erupt in the next hundred years or so, and create a tsunami big enough to wipe out Manhattan, and any other new england coastal city
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2001 11:09 am
by leedogg
Originally posted by Nippy:
<STRONG>The fact that Global Warming continues means that a lot of industrial cities are going to be sunk anyway due to rising sea levels. </STRONG>
Some estimates are that by 2100 the Earth’s land temperature will increase 2° F to 7° F. And here are some of the expected reverberations: Rising sea levels inundating coastal communities, altered crop yields and water supplies, increased floods and droughts and surges in infectious diseases.
i searched this up.
increased floods and droughts . how can you have both? in all actuality, do you think we can keep from doing worse before then? like the guy said in the Matrix "humans are a virus to the planet".
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2001 11:29 am
by Craig
In that year 2100 i expect that the place will be cold cos of the gulf(name?)will be flooded(best way to say it)
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2001 12:15 pm
by Anatres
[ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2001 2:21 pm
by fable
Anatres spielt:
Terrorists; they do it to instill fear. The fact that there is the potential to poison a water supply anywhere in the world doesn't seem to have much meaning to the majority of industrialized cultures.
I think that terrorists are far more pragmatic than they're usually given credit for. They know that they can't change a certain situation that exists, because the government supports it, and their own attitude represents a splinter group. So they resort to violence in order to undermine the sense of security of a voting public, and to provoke attention on an international level of the conditions they deplore. I'm not excusing their actions; merely explaining motivations, according to interviews and books I've read by terrorists, in the past.
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2001 7:42 pm
by leedogg
anatres- very nice answer. here's a cookie.

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2001 11:43 pm
by Xandax
Originally posted by Anatres:
<STRONG><snip>
Interplanetary colonization; Mars, even if we did melt the polar ice caps, couldn't support enough people to make a difference (besides, what do you do after all that water/oxygen is used up?). The moons of Jupiter would require terraforming to become hospitable enough to support human life. A technique we have not perfected (at least not in a positive manner).
Faster-than-light travel; Einstein didn't seem to think it would be possible without serious repercussions. Wormholes? Hyperspace? Who knows?
<snip></STRONG>
As for colonization, if we are talking about large colonies, like a size of large cities, I don't think we'll ever get off the planet.
Terraforming is not needed to colonize a planet/moon/planetoid, but of course it would help a lot
It wasen't faster-than-light speed I mentioned, it was near-light

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2001 6:22 am
by Nippy
[QUOTE]i searched this up. increased floods and droughts .
In areas which only have droughts maybe twice a year they will occur more and floods the same except they flood more (sea level rises and equator gets even hotter I think)
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2001 6:44 am
by Gruntboy
<Still lurking but not wanting to spam>
Who gives a monkeys? The Sun is going to crash into the Earth in a couple o hundred years anyway.

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2001 6:44 am
by Gruntboy
Whoops!
[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Gruntboy ]
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2001 7:14 am
by Mr Sleep
I agree with Grunt, we are all going to die so who cares anyway.
Flippant....i don't know what you mean....

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2001 7:48 am
by Anatres
[ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:21 am
by Mr Sleep
Recirculated Urine.....

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:53 am
by Gruntboy
Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>Recirculated Urine.....

</STRONG>
ROFLMAO
<Ubik signs up for the mission to mars with glee>

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:54 am
by Anatres
[ 06-19-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2001 4:08 am
by Nippy
I apologise but we needn't worry about terraforming, the Scientists can we are going to die before we run out if resources etc
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2001 9:46 am
by KidD01
Nippy, you sounds too self centered without thinking of the next generations. What do you plan to inherit your children and grand chilren ?
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2001 10:05 am
by Nippy
Yeah I suppose I forgot about that but the what I meant was that the scientists are bound to think of something. It's interesting though isn't it. We trust the future of the world to a group of minorities (scientists).